Part 2 - The Creator has Invalidated Knowing Earth's Age Through Scientific Enquiry

[TLK Valentine]

We have written language before Moses, even there was a law 1,000 years before Moses. But recorded history began with Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago.

Funny how nobody bothered to record that history until thousands of years later.

 

[2tim_215]

And if they have names and stories attached to them (biographies), you'll accept them, but if they have actual remains, you won't? I just want to know what color the snipe is before we start hunting.



You think real people don't have bones?

I'm looking at two things here:
1) history and
2) is it a human being as we know it?
Life? yes. Human? Don't know.
Show me some matching DNA and show me a name.
Is 1 of these "things" enough to come to some solid conclusions? What about repeat ability? And there's still the dating problem.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'm looking at two things here:
1) history and
2) is it a human being as we know it?

1) are you acknowledging that "history" need not be written down for it to have happened?
2) As we know it, or as you know it? Whose knowledge are we using as the baseline here?

Is 1 of these "things" enough to come to some solid conclusions? What about repeat ability?

Do you understand what these terms mean and how you're applying them here?

And there's still the dating problem.

Well, I can't help with that -- go out to some clubs, download some online apps....

 

[2tim_215]

This is science?

 

[TLK Valentine]

This is science?

You can't tell?

 

[2tim_215]

You can't tell?

Well, whatever you want to call it, it doesn't prove a darn thing.

 

[Ophiolite]

Well, whatever you want to call it, it doesn't prove a darn thing.

So, you have finally recognised that science is not in the business of proof, but of developing an explanation or model that best fits observations, experiments and arguments. Such models and explanations are always provisional, though some are so well validated it would be foolish not to accept them. (Until and unless some evidence can be located that refutes it, or at least raises serious questions.)

If you want proof, if you want certainty, then following religious dogma is a sensible way to go. Just don't try to abuse science by manipulating and misinterpreting the data to coincide with your worldview.

 

[2tim_215]

I don't need proof with certainty, I just prefer that it wouldn't be presented that way and as long as we agree on that, I'm fine with it. It's just that this one case doesn't really do much for me. Now if there were multiple cases, and some DNA intact to go along with it, that might prove something.

 

[Ophiolite]

I don't need proof with certainty

I think you'll find that certainty is an integral part of proof. It's what makes it proof.

 

[2tim_215]

There's a lot of definitions for proof:
1a:the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
b:the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
2obsolete :experience
3:something that induces certainty or establishes validity
4:archaic :the quality or state of having been tested or tried; especially :unyielding hardness
5:evidence operating to determine the finding or judgment of a tribunal
6:a copy (as of typeset text) made for examination or correction:a test impression of an engraving, etching, or lithograph:a coin that is struck from a highly polished die on a polished planchet, is not intended for circulation, and sometimes differs in metallic content from coins of identical design struck for circulation:a test photographic print made from a negative
7:a test applied to articles or substances to determine whether they are of standard or satisfactory quality
8a:the minimum alcoholic strength of proof spirit
b :strength with reference to the standard for proof spirit; specifically :alcoholic strength indicated by a number that is twice the percent by volume of alcohol present whiskey of 90 proof is 45 percent alcohol

I'd go with 1. Not quite 3.

 

[TLK Valentine]

There's a lot of definitions for proof:
1a:the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
b:the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
2obsolete :experience
3:something that induces certainty or establishes validity
4:archaic :the quality or state of having been tested or tried; especially :unyielding hardness
5:evidence operating to determine the finding or judgment of a tribunal
6:a copy (as of typeset text) made for examination or correction:a test impression of an engraving, etching, or lithograph:a coin that is struck from a highly polished die on a polished planchet, is not intended for circulation, and sometimes differs in metallic content from coins of identical design struck for circulation:a test photographic print made from a negative
7:a test applied to articles or substances to determine whether they are of standard or satisfactory quality
8a:the minimum alcoholic strength of proof spirit
b :strength with reference to the standard for proof spirit; specifically :alcoholic strength indicated by a number that is twice the percent by volume of alcohol present whiskey of 90 proof is 45 percent alcohol

I'd go with 1. Not quite 3.

By that definition, then, you're willing to accept that you may have "proof," but be wrong nevertheless. Are you okay with that?

 

[2tim_215]

I'm just saying that's one definition (happens to be the first one listed). I'm okay with that but the question I have, what is it that you're supposedly trying to prove here other than that they found something?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'm just saying that's one definition (happens to be the first one listed). I'm okay with that but the question I have, what is it that you're supposedly trying to prove here other than that they found something?

You accept the definition that allows for the possibility of error?

Nothing wrong with that; I personally like that one myself. But are you accepting that one... yes or no?

 

[2tim_215]

Yes, there's always the possibility, but highly unlikely in some cases, otherwise there wouldn't be disagreements. That doesn't determine what is true and what isn't, only possibilities which much of the time is subjective, hence skeptics, like yourself when it comes to the Bible and like myself, when it comes to science.

 

[Heissonear]

So, you have finally recognised that science is not in the business of proof, but of developing an explanation or model that best fits observations, experiments and arguments. Such models and explanations are always provisional, though some are so well validated it would be foolish not to accept them. (Until and unless some evidence can be located that refutes it, or at least raises serious questions.)

If you want proof, if you want certainty, then following religious dogma is a sensible way to go. Just don't try to abuse science by manipulating and misinterpreting the data to coincide with your worldview.

Whitewash. Make it look and produce something you choose it to appear.

Interpretation is at the heart of the problem of Natural Man using science. Mis-use of science, by his corrupt nature be the means.

And it is all Chit-chat by Earthly man. No power from above revelation.

Chit-chat production it be. Lost touch of the real is the cost.

Jesus did say Rivers of Living Water will flow from within to those who turn to walk after Him, to be His disciples.

Earthly people produce and only attain what is Earthly.

The chasm is huge between the two ways of being informed.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes, there's always the possibility, but highly unlikely in some cases, otherwise there wouldn't be disagreements. That doesn't determine what is true and what isn't, only possibilities which much of the time is subjective, hence skeptics, like yourself when it comes to the Bible and like myself, when it comes to science.

So if I told you that the age of the Earth has been "proven" to roughly 99.999% certainty, what would you say to those Christians who not only insist on believing in that other 0.001%, but will swear as if their souls depended on it (because in their minds, they do), that the other 99.999 is not merely wrong, but the product of a vast overarching conspiracy orchestrated by none other than the Prince of Darkness himself, with every single scientist involved as his (willing or unknowing) agent?

 

[Heissonear]

By that definition, then, you're willing to accept that you may have "proof," but be wrong nevertheless. Are you okay with that?

As first posts from me to you are recorded, you need to go to the Source. Without attaining from the Source you can only guess of the Spritual World and Life in our Midst.

And also recorded in some of our most recent posts, God and His Spirit are the last you would turn to for understanding how things are. Last on the list.

That then means chit-chat empty from what is from Above.

Meanwhile the Source still is ever present and active in those Born Again by the Spirit. The River of Living Water flows in those who have turned to the Source and follow Him.

The Scriptures are not empty words, but about what to attain and be changed forever by. Newness of life rather than continuing to be only Earthly.

 

[Heissonear]

So if I told you that the age of the Earth has been "proven" to roughly 99.999% certainty, what would you say to those Christians who not only insist on believing in that other 0.001%, but will swear as if their souls depended on it (because in their minds, they do), that the other 99.999 is not merely wrong, but the product of a vast overarching conspiracy orchestrated by none other than the Prince of Darkness himself, with every single scientist involved as his (willing or unknowing) agent?

Chit-chat.

This World is less than 10,000 years old

The One who made things this way has you holding empty reality - Naturalism and Scientism. Snares that came to be that has taken many - who did not turn to the Source for the final word. He who brought it about with Great Hidden Purposes.

 

[2tim_215]

So if I told you that the age of the Earth has been "proven" to roughly 99.999% certainty, what would you say to those Christians who not only insist on believing in that other 0.001%, but will swear as if their souls depended on it (because in their minds, they do), that the other 99.999 is not merely wrong, but the product of a vast overarching conspiracy orchestrated by none other than the Prince of Darkness himself, with every single scientist involved as his (willing or unknowing) agent?

I would say that 99.99% is a falsehood (if it were that high, then might as well say 100%). I would also say that with certainty, all the dates being quoted are inaccurate and are just guesses. To say that the earth is older than Usshers chronology is one thing, but how much older? If you can answer that (with certainty or 99.99% which would be good enough) and be able to prove it, well then you might have something. But regardless, the Bible doesn't give any dates, so I'm afraid it has you beat on that. No inaccuracies there.

 

[Heissonear]

It is obvious to see that many posters imply the Creator has mis-used His use of Apparent Age - like the Creator did wrong when He used Apparent Embedded Age when Creating this less than 10,000 years ago Universe.

Thus is the view from those who are only Earthly, and produce and see things as only Earthly - that as an idol have used only science to know the origin if the Universe.